theknuckler_33:Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: "What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?

That guy was talking about what he wants to hear the president say, then he goes on to say that "instead" he's made to feel like the bad guy. Instead of the president saying what he would like the president to say, the president made him feel like the bad guy. You can't invoke the president and then say that 'those other people on the street or the internet said a bad thing about me' and pretend like that is some sort of valid rebuttal of a friggin' policy proposal. WTF?

You didn't build that, among other things. It's sort of silly to deny that he's presented the wealthy as being greedy and unfair.

geek_mars:Silly Jesus: geek_mars: Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.

Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

One guy. Must be a fact and opinion shared a ...

Those investments are still riskier than a CD, for example. Not sure where you're going with that.

theknuckler_33:Pro Zack: theknuckler_33: And everyone knows that the middle class rack up huge chunks of income through dividends. That preferential treatment of dividends was clearly put in place to benefit the middle class.

*rolls eyes*

do you even have a 401K?

Of course, what does that have to do with anything? Dividends on your 401k investments (well, at least mine) are immediately reinvested (again, pre-tax, just like my contributions) into the plan. I won't pay taxes until I withdraw funds after, hopefully, I retire, at which time those withdrawals will be taxes as regular income.

The bogus argument, "won't anyone think of the 401ks" when discussing the idea of taxing dividends as regular income has always infuriated me.

It is unquestionably a false objection, because as you say, dividends in retirement accounts are tax-deferred and then withdrawals are taxed as regular income, except for ROTHs. Dividends could be taxed at 1% or 99% and it still wouldn't make a lick of difference to anyone's retirement account.

Any dipstick who tries that objection is disingenuous, and should DIAF.

If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and control 80% of the wealth and a great portion of people aren't paying any and are living under the poverty line? Sort of changes the whole "it's just 4% more" BS doesn't it?

You are an embarassment of a human being and you should be ashamed.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, amiright?

The Larch:Look, it's very simple. We just have to tax poor people more to punish them for being poor, and tax rich people less to reward them for being rich.

That way, everyone will want to be rich, and nobody will want to be poor. Then there will be no more poor people, and everyone will be rich, and the economy will get better.

jst3p:Deathray187: jst3p: Deathray187: If these people love the idea of kicking in more, why aren't they posting pictures of their tax returns with a big fat zero on the exemptions and credits portion? It is easy to pay more, why not do it instead of just talking about it?

I am willing to pay more, but only if everyone with equal or greater income to my own does too. Why is that so hard to grasp?

Ideas so good they have to be mandatory...

By your logic we should just abolish income tax all together, peopel will all pay their fair share without it being mandatory right?

I'm just pointing out how many seem to think it is a great idea, but they won't do it because other people won't. Apparently it isn't as hot of an idea as it is made out to be.

My personal belief is that everyone should pay taxes (the po' and the "evil" rich), not just the top half. A flat tax would be great. Eliminate deductions for businesses and slap a flat tax on them as well.

This way everyone would have some "skin in the game" to quote the prez.

"What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla."

Yep. Raise my taxes. Because we need the revenue, and I've benefited from everything from free education on up to get here. But do it without the class warfare. Because I didn't inherit a penny of it.

Silly Jesus:geek_mars: Silly Jesus: geek_mars: Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.

Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

One guy. Must be a fact and opini ...

Well, one of us isn't understanding the other, then (probably me). It seems like you're saying the reason capital gains are taxed at a lower rate is to encourage investment. I'm saying that encouragement is no longer needed so why shouldn't capital gains be taxed at the same rate as other sources of income?

Silly Jesus:theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: theknuckler_33: Silly Jesus: "What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

Read a Fark thread. All of the wealthy are sick sociopaths who inherited all of their wealth and are lazy and do no real work...that's sort of been the liberal talking point for awhile now. You've really not seen it?

That guy was talking about what he wants to hear the president say, then he goes on to say that "instead" he's made to feel like the bad guy. Instead of the president saying what he would like the president to say, the president made him feel like the bad guy. You can't invoke the president and then say that 'those other people on the street or the internet said a bad thing about me' and pretend like that is some sort of valid rebuttal of a friggin' policy proposal. WTF?

You didn't build that, among other things. It's sort of silly to deny that he's presented the wealthy as being greedy and unfair.

Silly Jesus:Folks pull out the 91% nonsense a lot but conveniently (or out of ignorance) fail to mention all of the other differences at that time, like all of the deductions on all interest etc. So, essentially, that's an absurd comparison.I am fine with money being moved around through law if it is genuinely needed in order to keep the economic machine functioning, but I am not OK with the redistribution out of some emotional "fairness" concept.

And there are no deductions that the wealthy can avail themselves of today? The point still stands, taxes on the wealthy have been significantly higher through the US economic booms of the past. You stated the opposite of this.

People are saying / thinking that if those greedy rich people just gave a little more all of our problems would be solved. I'm saying that in that context it's negligible.

That is not a mainstream economic or political position. If you are suggesting it is such you are at least grossly misrepresenting the views of other - or outright imagining it whole cloth - to fit with the views you have made a choice to believe in. Obama himself and reputable economists from both the right and left have all consistently insisted that we need tax increases combined with some spending cuts.

In the debate that Charles Gibson moderated. He said (paraphrasing) "Mr. Obama, what if raising taxes reduced revenue, would you still be for it?" Obama responded along the lines of "To me, it's an issue of fairness."

Jeez... GIBSON?!? You mean in the 2004 primary debates? How in the world does cherry picking - AND misrepresenting - a quote from the primary debtes years ago prove your point? Let me provide the quote in context, since your misrepresented quote seems to have been lifted straight from Rush Limbaugh, and the real quote has a much different meaning:GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

We saw an article today which showed that the top 50 hedge fund managers made $29 billion last year -- $29 billion for 50 individuals. And part of what has happened is that those who are able to work the stock market and amass huge fortunes on capital gains are paying a lower tax rate than their secretaries. That's not fair.

And what I want is not oppressive taxation. I want businesses to thrive, and I want people to be rewarded for their success. But what I also want to make sure is that our tax system is fair and that we are able to finance health care for Americans who currently don't have it and that we're able to invest in our infrastructure and invest in our schools.

And you can't do that for free.

Notice how different that is from how you presented the quote?

I'm not seeing that argument being made though. I'm seeing the "fairness" argument. Those are two completely different things. If the increase is needed to keep the system in check, fine. If it's for the arbitrarily and emotionally dictated concept of "fairness", then I am opposed to it.

The increase - and more actually then Obama is suggesting - is absolutely needed to keep the organism that is called our economy in line and functioning properly. Those arguments ARE being presented (though maybe not as explicitly as I laid it out in my last post for practical reasons), and the "fairness" motivations you're ascribing are not nearly as prevelent as you're suggesting. That's the right-wing echo chamber preying on your existing biases.

Marty: You know... in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news. Private Detective Visser: Now that don't make much sense.Marty: No. It made them feel better.

This is what I think of when everybody is chomping at the bit to tax the rich . As the article states, they will be just fine and some of them are even for it. My question is what is the impact? It's minimal as far as increased revenues and miniscule when considering the fact size of the debt . What nobody wants to say is that there are only 3 ways out and all will have to be done.

1. Print money. It's already happening with the Fed and the QEs. It's inflationary but will make the debt much easier to pay off.

Silly Jesus:You didn't build that, among other things. It's sort of silly to deny that he's presented the wealthy as being greedy and unfair.

The quote I corrected for you in my last post? This is you giving another example of that. A quote totally misrepresented in order to prey on the biases of folks on the right.

Do yourself a favor, find the original quote in context and read it. Then think back to how that was presented to you by the right-wing "fact" industry and let me know if you still trust the source who miseld you about that Obama quote. They had an agenda, and you are playing right in to it.

You also ready that wrong.the 11% group is 99.0 to 99.9 then you have to add in the 99.9 to 99.99 group 6% then the last 0.001 % who make up 5 %

that makes the total 1% top group represent 15% of the income from WAGES.

Damn it 25% (stupid typo :()

You're right I read it wrong. I saw the third group (11%) and read it as the sum of the top two groups (5% + 6%). So the top 1% earn 22% of the income, and pay 38% of the taxes. I don't see that as being unfair. My point is still to fix the capital gains problems as the income tax portion is pretty close to being in the right place.

Irregardless:Marty: You know... in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news. Private Detective Visser: Now that don't make much sense.Marty: No. It made them feel better.

This is what I think of when everybody is chomping at the bit to tax the rich . As the article states, they will be just fine and some of them are even for it. My question is what is the impact? It's minimal as far as increased revenues and miniscule when considering the fact size of the debt . What nobody wants to say is that there are only 3 ways out and all will have to be done.

1. Print money. It's already happening with the Fed and the QEs. It's inflationary but will make the debt much easier to pay off.

This seems a bit disingenuous when #2 reads "Tax the middle class" rather than "Raise taxes." Most middle class folks I know are willing to accept an increase and feel that pretty much everyone but the poor should be taxed a bit higher to drag our butts out of our current situation. Why do you specify the middle class in your example? Should the higher classes not also be included in that revenue raising?

It's been well established that tax breaks are government subsidies. Every dollar that isn't taxed is welfare. This means we are giving away BILLIONS of dollars in welfare to rich people. Propping up the wealthy at the expense of hard working folks is wrong. We need a wealth tax now! And if they leave, who cares? Rich people contribute nothing to society, and America would be better off without them. Let them move to countries that don't share our views, places where their unbridled greed can run unchecked. Good riddance! The US will be a better place without the rich; the people have decided!

geek_mars:Irregardless: Marty: You know... in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news. Private Detective Visser: Now that don't make much sense.Marty: No. It made them feel better.

This is what I think of when everybody is chomping at the bit to tax the rich . As the article states, they will be just fine and some of them are even for it. My question is what is the impact? It's minimal as far as increased revenues and miniscule when considering the fact size of the debt . What nobody wants to say is that there are only 3 ways out and all will have to be done.

1. Print money. It's already happening with the Fed and the QEs. It's inflationary but will make the debt much easier to pay off.

This seems a bit disingenuous when #2 reads "Tax the middle class" rather than "Raise taxes." Most middle class folks I know are willing to accept an increase and feel that pretty much everyone but the poor should be taxed a bit higher to drag our butts out of our current situation. Why do you specify the middle class in your example? Should the higher classes not also be included in that revenue raising?

I was not being disingenuous. I was lazy and did not communicate clearly. I should not have singled the middle class out. What I should have made clear is that they are the largest demographic and raising their taxes will provide the largest increase in revenues. I agree everyone but the poor should pay more. The only tax increase currently being discussed is aimed at the rich. Politicians are too scared to mention the middle class.

You also ready that wrong.the 11% group is 99.0 to 99.9 then you have to add in the 99.9 to 99.99 group 6% then the last 0.001 % who make up 5 %

that makes the total 1% top group represent 15% of the income from WAGES.

Damn it 25% (stupid typo :()

You're right I read it wrong. I saw the third group (11%) and read it as the sum of the top two groups (5% + 6%). So the top 1% earn 22% of the income, and pay 38% of the taxes. I don't see that as being unfair. My point is still to fix the capital gains problems as the income tax portion is pretty close to being in the right place.

I can agree with that there is not legitimate reason for capital gains to be so low. Other than as a giveaway to the rich and well connected.

The funny thing is the income tax bump would barely effect the truly rich since capital gains is where most of their "income" comes from

Irregardless:geek_mars: Irregardless: Marty: You know... in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news. Private Detective Visser: Now that don't make much sense.Marty: No. It made them feel better.

This is what I think of when everybody is chomping at the bit to tax the rich . As the article states, they will be just fine and some of them are even for it. My question is what is the impact? It's minimal as far as increased revenues and miniscule when considering the fact size of the debt . What nobody wants to say is that there are only 3 ways out and all will have to be done.

1. Print money. It's already happening with the Fed and the QEs. It's inflationary but will make the debt much easier to pay off.

This seems a bit disingenuous when #2 reads "Tax the middle class" rather than "Raise taxes." Most middle class folks I know are willing to accept an increase and feel that pretty much everyone but the poor should be taxed a bit higher to drag our butts out of our current situation. Why do you specify the middle class in your example? Should the higher classes not also be included in that revenue raising?

I was not being disingenuous. I was lazy and did not communicate clearly. I should not have singled the middle class out. What I should have made clear is that they are the largest demographic and raising their taxes will provide the largest increase in revenues. I agree everyone but the poor should pay more. The only tax increase currently being discussed is aimed at the rich. Politicians are too scared to mention the middle class.

The problem is, at the same time, depriving the largest consumer segment of that much purchasing power will probably have a negative effect on the demand-driven economy. On the other hand, the higher you get up the income ladder, the less likely it is for a slight increase in tax rates affect consumption in any meaningful way. That balance, between revenue and economic effects, is what we're trying to strike.

Irregardless:geek_mars: Irregardless: Marty: You know... in Greece, they would cut off the head of the messenger that brought the bad news. Private Detective Visser: Now that don't make much sense.Marty: No. It made them feel better.

This is what I think of when everybody is chomping at the bit to tax the rich . As the article states, they will be just fine and some of them are even for it. My question is what is the impact? It's minimal as far as increased revenues and miniscule when considering the fact size of the debt . What nobody wants to say is that there are only 3 ways out and all will have to be done.

1. Print money. It's already happening with the Fed and the QEs. It's inflationary but will make the debt much easier to pay off.

This seems a bit disingenuous when #2 reads "Tax the middle class" rather than "Raise taxes." Most middle class folks I know are willing to accept an increase and feel that pretty much everyone but the poor should be taxed a bit higher to drag our butts out of our current situation. Why do you specify the middle class in your example? Should the higher classes not also be included in that revenue raising?

I was not being disingenuous. I was lazy and did not communicate clearly. I should not have singled the middle class out. What I should have made clear is that they are the largest demographic and raising their taxes will provide the largest increase in revenues. I agree everyone but the poor should pay more. The only tax increase currently being discussed is aimed at the rich. Politicians are too scared to mention the middle class.

Lazy and not communicating clearly!? Now that I can appreciate.

Politicians are too scared to mention the middle class because they're only worried about keeping their jobs and not as concerned about actually doing them, and that's a lot of voters to be pissing off.

Silly Jesus:"What would make me feel a lot better is if I heard the president say, 'I want to thank the rich people who, because of our progressive tax system, pay the most - but we don't have enough money, so we're asking the wealthy people to help the country out by paying more than their fair share,' " says Martin Krall, a 71-year-old "semi-retired" attorney and media executive who lives in Palm Beach Gardens, Fla.

"There are a lot of people in my income category who are living paycheck to paycheck," says Mark Anderson, a 29-year-old mortgage broker in St. Louis. "It's just a different level of credit card debt." Mark Anderson of St. Louis thinks President Obama and other Democrats make being rich "sound like a bad thing," something he says is a mistake. Anderson says he and his wife, a pathologist, fall into the 2 percent category but not by much.

First, the guy has a very punchable face. Second, fark you and the horse you rode in on asshole. I'll tell you what, I am nowhere close to the top 2% income bracket but we do not live paycheck to paycheck. So I'll switch incomes with you so that way you don't have to bear that terrible burden.

And they wonder why we think they are out of touch with the rest of us 98 percenters?

Testiclaw:The next motherfarker who makes some multiple of the average household income and still complains they're living paycheck to paycheck is getting a swift kick in the slats.

My household income is a little more than 2X the average household income and my family lives paycheck to paycheck unless you want to consider being able to contribute to my 401K via pre-tax payroll deductions as not being 'paycheck to paycheck'. You are more than welcome to attempt to deliver a swift kick in the slats to me, mr. ITG.

mrshowrules:sweetmelissa31: Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.

Agreed. $250K in a 5 person household is not a fortune but is not bad. In the context of tax it is $250K a person which is quite a bit of money by any standard.

Let's not forget, he's claiming its hard because he's paying for college for 2 kids. What happened to the student loans we're all supposed to be getting if we can't afford college? In other news, people like bernie grimm can EABOD and DIAF. They're the reason we have this problem.

theknuckler_33:Testiclaw: The next motherfarker who makes some multiple of the average household income and still complains they're living paycheck to paycheck is getting a swift kick in the slats.

My household income is a little more than 2X the average household income and my family lives paycheck to paycheck unless you want to consider being able to contribute to my 401K via pre-tax payroll deductions as not being 'paycheck to paycheck'. You are more than welcome to attempt to deliver a swift kick in the slats to me, mr. ITG.

I'm having a hard time finding "average"... everything seems to be 'median'. But the "some college" (which is my case) median that I see in wikipedia as of 2003 is about $46K. I make about $80K/yr now, but my wife (real estate agent) contributes wildly varying amounts to our household income. Probably close to $30K this year (her best year in the last 5 by far). So, I guess personally, I don't make twice the average, maybe... but as a household, we do... usually.

My wife quit a $55K/yr job in 2005 to become a real estate agent, so the house we bought in 2000 based on our two incomes suddenly became much more expensive to us as a percentage of our household income.

I was just a tad perturbed at the 'some multiple' inclusiveness of your statement. I can understand cost of living differences and such for people making 3, 4, even 5 times the national median income... but when you start getting into being effected by the tax increases proposed by Obama, then you lose any sympathy from me once you consider only TAXABLE income above $250K is subject to the increased rate and to have income of that level, your base income (before deductions) is likely to be well over $300K.

That's a damned FAR cry from a guy like me making about twice the median.

If I'm already paying 37% of all taxes and control 80% of the wealth and a great portion of people aren't paying any and are living under the poverty line? Sort of changes the whole "it's just 4% more" BS doesn't it?

You are an embarassment of a human being and you should be ashamed.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, amiright?

geek_mars:Silly Jesus: geek_mars: Silly Jesus: geek_mars: Silly Jesus: LectertheChef: pacified: Silly Jesus: 1. When the tax rates were previously lowered, the economy benefited.2. The raising of the taxes will add a negligent amount of money to the coffers.3. Obama has admitted that even if raising taxes on the wealthy hurts the economy, he is still all for it, because "fairness."

If it were to truly be a help or if based on a simple mathematical formula we needed it to be done for the good of everyone, then I'd be all for it. But it's not that at all, it's class warfare nonsense and Obama simply doesn't think that it's fair that the successful have accumulated more wealth than others and he's going to rectify that by taking some of it away.

Citataion needed on "point 1"

I love the second point too from the GOPers. Hey, the tax increase won't pay for ALL of the defecit... might as well do nothing, am i right?

But hey, go on thinking people paying 15% on dividends whilst I work and pay 40% in taxes in to Feds, SSDI, and Medicare is fair.

Don't you understand that dividends income is superior to income derived through labor? Labor is for the lazy poors, and should therefore be punished. So that maybe, in the future, you'll learn to be rich, and make your money through dividends, instead of a lazy poor who works 60+ hours a week.

Incentive for investment, how does it work?

You mean that higher risk = greater reward? Strange concept. Durr.

Wouldn't the greater reward be the dividends from a successful investment? Why should one get a government reward from a successful private investment? Also, FTFA: "There's nothing in history that supports the view that if you give the wealthy their money back, they'll invest it," says Prince, who owns a company based in Nolensville, Tenn., that makes gift cards. "We invest anyway - that's what the wealthy do."That particular job creator seems to suggest that tax rates have nothing to do with investing.

One guy. Must be a f ...

So people would equally invest in more risky and more safe investments if the payment incentives of both were equal?

Trail of Dead:Cinaed: "My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money." ~FTFA

You can actually afford to send your kids to college. And I'm guessing that they aren't going to NOVA, you sanctimonious douchebag.Other, lower income, groups can go to college... with loans, lots of loans. Your kids will come away debt free.

Now, we don't dislike your relative wealth. Far from it. We do, however, get pissy when you somehow think that your paying the same rate as the dirt poor is a 'bad' thing.

Can there be a middle-ground statement? My wife and I make close to that. We live in the New York Metro area (Hoboken). We do not live nearly as well as somebody making that much money in Ohio or Kansas or Montana. Not even close.BUT, we consider ourselves very very lucky, and wealthy, and we are ready to fork over more cash so others don't have to. Fair is fair.

Sure. I'm guessing your employment is very much tied to that area, with comparable salary/wages/earnings/etc unlikely to be matched by anything in the... Ohio, Kansas, or Montana areas.

Assuming that even after cash is forked over, a good bit remains. But no biggie, that's your due. But the kid-tuition thing... if you have kids, are they going the community college route? The nearest state school? The big name state school? The nice liberal arts school? The big name Ivy?

Being wealthy means being able to actually 'choose' that last bit. Being poor means 'no one goes to college'.

sweetmelissa31:Also in that article: a man claiming that > $250K per year is not a lot of money because he has 3 kids. Maybe it's your penis's fault and not Oblomov's.

It amazes me how some people manage to amass a lot of wealth while apparently having no financial sense. Yes, $250k goes further in some parts of the country than others, but it's enough for a family to live just fine on. Buy a Toyota instead of a Jaguar and cook at home once in awhile, and get over it.

Elandriel:I like the bit about how the top 1% pay 37.4% of the income taxes. GOSH!! But, that's low - they take in what like 54%* of the national yearly income or something? And control 90+% of the wealth?

I think their tax rate should be equivalent to their share of income adjusted nationally. If the top 1% get 54% of the income, or whatever, they should be providing 54% of the income taxes.

* probably wrong

Their share of income is significantly lower than their share of taxes.

Cinaed:Trail of Dead: Cinaed: "My wife and I collectively make over that," says Bernie Grimm, an attorney in Washington, D.C., "but with three kids and two in college, that's not a lot of money." ~FTFA

You can actually afford to send your kids to college. And I'm guessing that they aren't going to NOVA, you sanctimonious douchebag.Other, lower income, groups can go to college... with loans, lots of loans. Your kids will come away debt free.

Now, we don't dislike your relative wealth. Far from it. We do, however, get pissy when you somehow think that your paying the same rate as the dirt poor is a 'bad' thing.

Can there be a middle-ground statement? My wife and I make close to that. We live in the New York Metro area (Hoboken). We do not live nearly as well as somebody making that much money in Ohio or Kansas or Montana. Not even close.BUT, we consider ourselves very very lucky, and wealthy, and we are ready to fork over more cash so others don't have to. Fair is fair.

Sure. I'm guessing your employment is very much tied to that area, with comparable salary/wages/earnings/etc unlikely to be matched by anything in the... Ohio, Kansas, or Montana areas.

Assuming that even after cash is forked over, a good bit remains. But no biggie, that's your due. But the kid-tuition thing... if you have kids, are they going the community college route? The nearest state school? The big name state school? The nice liberal arts school? The big name Ivy?

Being wealthy means being able to actually 'choose' that last bit. Being poor means 'no one goes to college'.

No kids or cars. Can't afford them! Kidding. Pretty sure if we had triplets today, we could save enough over the next 18 years to send them in-state.

Bennie Crabtree:here is the sentence where the article stopped being well-written and once again was merely rewriting prejudice into the national narrative:

But he believes there's plenty of waste in government - including domestic programs he worries are leaving some individuals dependent on government largesse.

A well-written article would have noted who those individuals are.

Well, the reporter could have asked the guy who he thought was getting all that sweet, sweet government cheese. But generally that's a bad idea, because people get offended and end the interview when you ask them questions that reveal what idiots they are.

theknuckler_33:Testiclaw: The next motherfarker who makes some multiple of the average household income and still complains they're living paycheck to paycheck is getting a swift kick in the slats.

My household income is a little more than 2X the average household income and my family lives paycheck to paycheck unless you want to consider being able to contribute to my 401K via pre-tax payroll deductions as not being 'paycheck to paycheck'. You are more than welcome to attempt to deliver a swift kick in the slats to me, mr. ITG.

Well, my wife and I max out our contributions each year and we don't make 2x the average household income and we don't live paycheck to paycheck. Did you buy too much house? A few too many cars? Do you have ten kids? There must be something else to this story you aren't telling us.

Pincy:theknuckler_33: Testiclaw: The next motherfarker who makes some multiple of the average household income and still complains they're living paycheck to paycheck is getting a swift kick in the slats.

My household income is a little more than 2X the average household income and my family lives paycheck to paycheck unless you want to consider being able to contribute to my 401K via pre-tax payroll deductions as not being 'paycheck to paycheck'. You are more than welcome to attempt to deliver a swift kick in the slats to me, mr. ITG.

Well, my wife and I max out our contributions each year and we don't make 2x the average household income and we don't live paycheck to paycheck. Did you buy too much house? A few too many cars? Do you have ten kids? There must be something else to this story you aren't telling us.

It makes me wonder if some people don't quite understand what living "paycheck to paycheck" actually means. It means that you come very close to, or actually do, completely run out of money on or before each payday. If you have a savings account with more than a week's worth of pay in it, you don't live paycheck to paycheck. If you always maintain a positive balance in your checking account of $10+, you don't live paycheck to paycheck. If you can cover even a relatively small unexpected expense without getting a loan or putting it on credit, you don't live paycheck to paycheck.

/Has known a few people with 5-figure savings accounts who've claimed to be living "paycheck to paycheck".